Harper v. . Pinkston

17 S.E. 161, 112 N.C. 293
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1893·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

AVERY, J., concurring. (Discussion of Lord Denman's Act, section 580 of The Code, bill of discovery, matters of privileges, etc.) The wife, who alone is charged to have been slandered, is not a party to the action. There being no special damage alleged as to the husband, who is the sole plaintiff, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Newell on Defamation, 365, 1849; Odgers Slander and Libel, 313, 346; Folkard's Starkie on Slander, 332; The Code, sec. 177. The words were not used in regard to the husband, and his reputation certainly has not been assailed. He must aver special damage. The action should, therefore, be dismissed on the motion made here by the defendant. Indeed, it might have been done exmero motu by this Court. Rule 27 of Supreme Court; Hagins v. R. R.,106 N.C. 537; Gordon v. Sanderson, 83 N.C. 1.

This makes it unnecessary to consider the interesting questions raised on the argument. There is no case of which a court can take cognizance.

ACTION DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harper v. . Pinkston, 17 S.E. 161, 112 N.C. 293 (N.C. 1893).

17 S.E. 161 (Harper v. . Pinkston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fleming v. . Light Co.
50 S.E.2d 45 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
229 N.C. 397 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Butler v. Stites
7 Tenn. App. 482 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1928)